Friday, November 24, 2006

You can't make a silk purse if the sow doesn't have ears

While millions of Canadians sustain their perceptions and grievances on a daily diet of the CBC and the Toronto Star, these are the leading sources of ideological malnutrition in this country. Edward Michael George, possibly less given to the flashy-vector-graphics or stentorious-canned-anthems of the CBC, takes on the static medium of the Star… with the bonus juxtaposition that never fails to make me laugh of serious and insightful observations with a blunt and simple and possibly juvenile graphic (above). Semper poo poo ho:

The world the Star describes is unrecognizable to me at the most fundamental level. Indeed, and what amazes me more: while Toronto Starland is a quite fantastical place, it is somehow also entirely devoid of a sense of romance; it is a place of shrill, awkwardly and toothily grinning busybodies--relentlessly chattering away in their native tongue, Pedantian, in spite of the absence upon their heads of ears--stuck in a never ending bid to outsuccour the other members of their überclass for the grunting approbation of the masses over which they have absolute charge. Savage, irreligious, slavering elephant-men to a man, these masses ...
Read the rest here…

4 comments:

Al said...

If the money is such a big deal for the divorced guy/girl making 80 grand and not being able to split income, they could maybe stay together and use the money saved for marriage councelling. If we can't satisfy everyone, we should satisfy no-one---incredible!

Little Tobacco said...

Canadian compassion - we all must suffer equally

Anonymous said...

"If we can't satisfy everyone, we should satisfy no-one --- incredible!"

If taxes should be lower, this is a badly worked out way to accomplish that.

The issue must be that the current law is fair in the sense that it is at least equal for all individuals, whereas it seems that the point that was made does identify a serious problem with the proposed law -- the "income splitting" will bring in a way to legally discriminate in a peculiar way -- predicated on a basis which is improper under Canadian laws (Charter 15,1?).

If two taxpayers earned the same income, and each had three dependents, they could pay a quite different tax rate if one of them happened to count among the dependents a spouse, and the other didn't. That doesn't sound like "equal under the law".

Why should "spouse" be treated so different from a tax perspective versus "child" or "ex-spouse"? Why should "married with dependents" be treated so differently from "divorced with dependents"?

MapMaster said...

Income tax is itself nothing but inherently arbitrary and its exercise in Canada is and almost always has been profoundly discriminatory. Cutting the government's take from citizens is the good thing — such is the emasculated condition of the Canadian intellect that the Star and other apologists reduce themselves to quibbling instead over the division of the spoils, as if tax cuts as well must be redistributed according to their socio-political agendas.